User talk:Sulfur/Archive2010
:For older discussions, see the 2006 archives, the 2007 archives, the 2008 archives, the 2009 archives, or the 2010 archives. ---- Physician vs Dr. :Moved to Memory Alpha talk:Disambiguation#Physician vs Dr.... Motion picture v motion-picture Quoting from you: "Please note that while your grammar comment may be correct, "motion picture" is also correct, as it is the standard industry term (without the hyphen). As such, that is the term we use here on Memory Alpha." Not to put too fine a point on it, but just to be clear: my friend, there's no "may be" about it. With adjectival phrases, hyphens are required in standard English usage. You mention a contradictory "industry" standard. As someone who trains university-level writers for jobs in the US film industry, I disagree that this is accurate (and I'm unaware of any text defining entertainment-specific grammatical standards)—but the matter depends on how the term "standard" is defined. If by "standard" you mean "most common usage," then I'm sure you're right. That said, using frequency or popularity as the determining factor in deciding correctness is a slippery slope. For my part, when editing texts to be published (or submitted to agents) I always use the standards recommended by AMPAS, the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, etc. That said, you've edited over 60,000 articles (incredible work!), whereas I've edited 31. You say the adjective is "motion picture" . . . from now on, like my fellow Andorian Shran, I'll just say "film"! Thanks. AmbassadorShras 10:15, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :The film industry (aka the "motion picture industry") doesn't seem to stick to using language guides (as I'm certain that you've noticed). Generally, we try to keep our language here correct and proper whenever possible, but we also use the common language used in the industry itself, because our guide is documenting part of that industry (along with small pieces of the novel, game, and comics industries), so there are certain places where we bow to "common" usages rather than grammatical correctness. As such, the "may be" construct above is correct too, because the movies just don't seem to use standard English! :Of course, the simple route is to reword and avoid those conflicting usages whenever possible as you noted! :) -- sulfur 10:27, October 25, 2010 (UTC) ::I appreciate the discussion. Again quoting: "The film industry (aka the "motion picture industry") doesn't seem to stick to using language guides (as I'm certain that you've noticed)." ::I've noticed the opposite! Sticking to the highest standards = a greater chance of getting (or keeping) a job. It's the same in showbiz as anywhere else. ::You go on to say, "the movies just don't seem to use standard English!" Of course not. But professionals who write about them ("as a rule"? har har) stake their reputation on their ability to write at the highest level, and in accordance with such standards. ::Using correct grammar isn't "bowing" to anything. Instead, using good grammar standards helps to ensure that, as writers and editors, we're communicating as best and as smoothly as possible. ::Again, my thanks. Yeah, it's just a hyphen, but the question of when and where to use standards—and what those standards are—is significant. ::AmbassadorShras 10:48, October 25, 2010 (UTC) USS Reliant (NCC-74668) a created this page and when i came off it I wanted go back on and the search didn't bring up the result. :It is non-canon. It doesn't belong here. See your talk page for further details. -- sulfur 16:00, October 26, 2010 (UTC) "Extinction" article Sulfur, I cannot believe I actually made fairly significant additions to an article and you didn't come in and revert/undo my edits! What could this mean? Please tell me: was the reason for this on your part (busy, tired, etc.), or did I finally did something somewhat satisfactory?! This would a first for me and a monumental cause for celebration (for me; not anyone else, that is). I very much hope it's the latter. But please tell me straight: have I come far enough along such that you don't always have to quickly "clean up" my ill-advised edits?! If so, I'm ^_^ Finally I'd feel like an actual useful contributor to MA instead of a bothersome nuisance that constantly needs you to step in and stop me from goofing things. Either way, thank you for your patience. I admit my (highly fragile) low self-esteem sinks me when I look at a page's history and read your summaries that, while accurate, are a little tough to swallow. Best regards, --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 17:17, October 30, 2010 (UTC) PS I'm sure you'll find yourself cleaning up after me again soon, but I hope this is a step in the right direction for me (and for you – saving you trouble.) Why do you keep removing my "howevers"? Hi Sulfur. I've noticed you remove my "howevers" and call them (somewhat disdainfully) "lazy" words. They are not lazy but help add to the flow of the prose. I'm a linguistic hobbyist, and I've published many peer reviewed scholarly articles (and read hundreds). It is quite common, at least in encyclopedic, textbook, and scholarly verbal communication to highlight and break up a sentence with such a word. I guess I write from a different perspective, and you're free to keep removing my "howevers", even though I believe they are helpful to the prose in certain cases. Does MA have a policy against "however"? Do you have citations indicating it's a "lazy" word? If it is, then the vast majority of acclaimed English literature is replete with such laziness, in addition to scholarly works. Or is this just a personal idiomatic stylistic preference you have? I'll be glad to cease using them (even when, IMO, they are effective verbal devices). Otherwise, I guess I don't understand why you take mine out summarily and refer to the word pejoratively as "lazy". Of course, as with other devices, it can be over-used, and it is somewhat tiring to read them when they begin a sentence or end up being misused. I don't believe, however, I have been doing that ;) ^_^ I will say I have and expect to continue to be quite thankful for your willingness to patrol my edits and fix them as needed (and with such swiftness!). Thanks for looking after me. Best regards, --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 12:42, November 2, 2010 (UTC) :When you have an average of 3 "however"s per article on Memory Alpha, and almost 50% of the articles do not contain the word, and about half of the others are poorly used (ie, they are simply used mid-sentence to break something up), then yes, they are "lazy" words. The written word does not need to be broken up the same way that speech does, and in an encyclopedic format, the over-reliance on the word to simply break up sentences is not at all required. Yes, sometimes the word is useful and can be used (as long as it is properly and appropriately), however, most of the time that is not the case. :Some people, however, just like to break up sentences, however, this is not always the correct way to do it. :) -- sulfur 12:47, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Oh. I didn't realize the article already contained three "howevers" (I didn't write it). I certainly agree using it over-much is quite bad, for it can slow things down and actually make the prose a chore to read. Still, I hope we don't throw out "however" when it's used properly just because some use it poorly on other articles! The fact that an editor or editors use it inappropriately is not a logical reason to eliminate summarily. We should examine it on a case-by-case basis, no? Oh well. I'm as usual happy to defer to you and am just glad you're here for me. :) --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 14:08, November 2, 2010 (UTC) PS Note: the way you used "however" is incorrect: you used it as a conjunction (it's not). You can't use it to split two complete phrases. You'd need a semicolon, period, or an and, but, yet, for, or etc. And I'd never use it twice in a sentence and tend to avoid its use in a paragraph more than once (or several of them in a row). Words such as "rather", eg, can substitute. :) :Note: I was using "however" like it is used in 95% of the articles on MA. -- sulfur 14:15, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Aha! I finally see your point. I can see why that'd bother you. (It would very much bother me, too.) So one final – ? :) – question: would you be ok leaving in at least some of mine, which I use very carefully and believe them to improve the prose? If not, and you're just plain tired of seeing that word because so many have sullied/abused it, then I understand. I hope you extend me slack, but if it's your policy, I'll try to abide by it and won't bother you about it again (I hope!). ^_^ (please say "yes"! .... no, just kidding. It's your policy, and I'll of course defer to you. (Note: I'm neither now using nor do I employ sarcasm. I really am sincere here. I'll let you make the call. I just am, of course, trying to advocate for me!) Best regards Sulfur (and thanks for clarifying things), --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 15:58, November 2, 2010 (UTC) :If you feel the need to use "however", once you've put it in, and see if there is a better way of wording it to avoid the usage. If you cannot come up with a better way, leave it. If you can, then use that instead. -- sulfur 16:00, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Got it. One last question, if you'll indulge me :) If I truly believe it makes the prose flow the best and is appropriate, and you've already removed it, is it ok for me to re-add it? I don't want to look like I'm in an edit war (especially over a sentence structure!). What about if you or I put the offending phrase on the talk page and let me throw out some alternatives. If I can't rework it satisfactorily, we could leave it in. I don't know what I'm asking here: is that too much for you to do? Could you extend a "special dispensation" to me about "however" now that I''' am aware of its over-use '''and you know that I use it appropriately and sparingly? It would be really nice if you could, when you see me use "however", to put the phrase on the talk page and give me a chance to defend its usage instead of summarily deleting it (because no matter how much I believe it enhances the prose and my vast experience writing and publishing peer-reviewed scholarly articles, I won't re-add it – I don't want to undo an edit you just made!). I could be asking too much: I don't know. If it helps, I could begin "patrolling" for the all-too-common misuses of it and help you remove them. :) (I, too, hate seeing it misused, especially at the beginning of sentences or worse, when people use the word as a conjunction! Or just plain too many times close together, such as in the same paragraph or in the span of a few adjoining paragraphs. I agree: they're often unnecessary and make things cumbersome. But the word does have utility and is sometimes simply the cleanest and clearest way to communicate an idea verbally.) I eagerly await your response. And again, I apologize for being a pest/nuisance about this. Sulfur, you are one (if not the) best admins here. I don't want to incur your enmity; I'm afraid I'm already doing that. Please accept my sincerest apologies. I'm going through a very tough time right now: five ER visits and an extended stay in the hospital over the past 15--20 days. I'm in incredible pain, essentially confined to bed, and over the past month I've learned I'm suffering from many life-threatening and life-altering conditions. My body (and mind) is in really bad shape. I doubt you're interested to hear (probably TMI for you), but I'll at least say from my brain to rectum, just about everything is failing. Pulmonary emboli, possibly permanent catheterization, heart trouble, kidneys, colon, bladder, prostate, possibly cancerous growths, and a lot more. (That's why I can only use an iPod touch to access the Internet.) And I'm just learning this all of a sudden. So please bear with me. I really need you on my side as I try to learn to be a useful contributor to MA. Thanks. (Sorry for the TMI!) --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 17:33, November 3, 2010 (UTC) Voyager Disambiguation I have no idea how that happened; I didn't edit that page, nor had I looked at it until I saw "my" edit in Recent Changes...– Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:53, November 2, 2010 (UTC) :Prolly hit "rollback" by accident I'm guessing. No worries. Hopefully all fixed up better now, though I'm still not happy with the wording on the starship yet. -- sulfur 23:58, November 2, 2010 (UTC) Yeah, that seems possible. Sorry about that. :-)– Cleanse ( talk | ) 00:09, November 3, 2010 (UTC) Responded on my talk page Hi, Sulfur. You left an admonishing piece of advice regarding my behavior on article talk pages on my talk page. I responded to you [[User_Talk:Cepstrum|'there']]. I'm just writing this here to let you know, because I get confused about whether I'm supposed to respond there or here. Which is the correct place – especially considering your "warning" that you'll keep your responses confined to your talk page! ;) --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 12:55, November 5, 2010 (UTC) PS btw, thanks for bothering to take time to point out my rather obscure errors. It's obvious you care a great deal both about MA and my own development as a contributor. Sure, I'd prefer nothing but praise and accolades. But I recognize that with your frequent corrective (and constructive) criticism of me, you're actually indirectly demonstrating you care. I'm not vandalizing or doing really bad things, so I can only conclude that by you pointing out (all too frequently, unfortunately) my gaffes/errors, you're investing in me (and MA) – "tough love". (Though I'd be thrilled if you ever got the opportunity to genuinely offer mere praise, no matter how small. But I guess I've just not warranted any so far. I'll keep trying, though!) --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 12:55, November 5, 2010 (UTC) Request for mediation/input/advice Sulfur, I need your swift help. Here's my problem: yesterday, as I mentioned on the article's talk page, I put an "in use" tag on the article so I could offline make desperately-needed copy edits, fixes to improper linking (redirects instead of piped), etc. DistantlyCharmed left a message on my talk page, saying I should not use the "in use" tag because I was only copy editing and not making substantial content changes (though I am making significant alterations to the grammar and over-long, awkward prose, along with a few factual corrections.) My fear is that without the "in use" tag and "freezing" the article for a few more hours, someone might come along and make edits that will be lost when I upload my cleaned-up version. I responded on DistantlyCharmed's talk page. (Update: Distantlycharmed moved the discussion back to [[User_Talk:Cepstrum#copy editing|''to my talk page, here,]] ''and seems cautiously open to the use of the tag.) Still, I would really appreciate it if you could weigh in there to settle this matter, for I'm not sure who is correct. I want to do the right thing, and I'm very confident you will know what that is! Could you please help? Even just a short clarifying note would be great. But I know you're busy handling so many things/putting out fires. :) Thanks much. Best regards, --[[User:Cepstrum|'Cepstrum']] (talk) 18:44, November 8, 2010 (UTC) PS My apologies if I'm in error by asking you to mediate. I wasn't sure what to do, and you are speedy and know so much! :Cepstrum, you need to seriously relax and stop being so scared and jumpy and apologetic all the time. No one was chastising you or forbidding you from doing anything. With all due respect but you spend entirely too much time writing lengthy essays and apologies instead of just editing. I responded on your talk page and to make it clear, I never said you *should not* put that "notice" up there, I merely said you might not need to given what you do. Sorry sulfur for using your talk page - since Cepstrum posted here, I had to respond here. – Distantlycharmed 19:08, November 8, 2010 (UTC)